So what was the Supreme Court decision on allowing handguns really about last week and who did it most affect? First of all it was another chapter written in the book called “Can Americans be trusted with responsible choices or not?”
Five of the judges stated clearly, yes to that question on Thursday as they viewed the right to own a handgun responsibly with respect.
As usual, four of the justices did not and decided that responsible American citizens should be treated the same as irresponsible ones who are committing crimes in this country.
Many have said that it is the number of guns causing problems in the country. I would side with those who would say that it is the intentions behind those guns that provide the problem.
This brings me to the answer to that second question; can Americans be trusted with responsible choices or not.
The answer is Absolutely.
They’ve been doing it since the founding of this country using, by the way, ideas and guns. If the ruling had gone against individual rights of gun ownership last week, who would have been most affected? Responsible American citizens would continue do the same things they’ve always done; respect law and make choices with it as part of their civic duty to the country , whether guns would have been taken away or not. We could trust their choices to be the same; responsible.
For criminals, we could also trust their’s to be the same no matter what the ruling; irresponsible and unlawful. The only difference now is that their prey may be armed, which could be a deterrent for them.
So,when they decide to invade a man’s home and castle, they would do well to remember Jesse Ventura’s famous plaque over his door: Forget the dog , beware of owner. “ The responsible owners of this country have rights, too. One ruling for them was cast last week! I’m Gary Sutton.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
What was that Supreme Court Ruling really all about on handguns?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Last night I watched an episode of "30 Days", I think it was on FX, about an anti-gun rights lady living with a pro-gun rights man and his son for a month. It was actually pretty fascinating...there was no crazy hooting and hollering, just both sides presenting their case. The lady had to work in a gun shop and learn about firearms, go to the range, etc.
Both sides present a strong case - so Gary, I think you're asking the right question. Can people be trusted to purchase, carry, and use guns in an appropriate manner?
They took a trip to the University of Utah where students are allowed to carry firearms to school. One student made a very convincing point: in the case of an emergency situation, let's say a shooting the likes of Columbine or VT, do you really want armed students doing battle with the criminals? Should a police officer or SWAT Team enter the building and see a student in a firing position, do they shoot them on sight? They would have no idea what they were getting into and innocent, law-abiding, gun carrying students could be hurt or killed by the very people sworn to protect them.
Just something to think about I guess...I don't own a firearm but I know people who do, and they follow the rules and keep themselves and others safe. But where do you draw the line?
Elicits memories of "Escape from New York" or perhaps nowadays "Escape from Old York".
Handguns for the masses !!
Doug,
A thoughtful post. I'd add the observation that freedom is not free - it carries a cost.
For example, if people are free to skydive, that freedom carries the cost that some number will die exercising that freedom. Politicians have not, as of yet, decided that the cost of this freedom is too high, so it still exists.
People are free to wear spandex and ride bicycles on roads built for cars, but the price of this freedom is some broken limbs, bent bikes and hair raising experiences for drivers. But these costs are not (yet)high enough to take away the freedom.
Americans have traditionally put a pretty high value on freedom and didn't give them away except when the cost got way too high - for example the freedom to get drunk and then drive.
Sadly, the trend for Americans is to value only the freedoms they personally cherish highly and to gladly trade away freedoms important to other people for the tiniest perceived benefit.
This is, of course, the legacy of liberals who can't sleep at night due to the overwhelming worry that someone, somewhere might be driving the car of their choice, eating fried food or deciding to allow smoking in their own bar.
Ok, here we go. Doug kicks it off with a solid entry stimulating some thought and response. Anonymous comes back with something a bit ambiguous, but non-political. Trenton chimes in with a couple of analogies........so far so good.
Then, we get the "legacy of liberals" poop at the end. You just can't help yourself can you Trenton?
How about this: How many pure liberals and/or conservatives do you know? I'm guessing that 99% of us can't be labeled as a member of either tribe.
Since you seem bent on labeling people and jamming human beings into some political pigeon hole, then how about assigning a team for me to join? Here are a few of my random beliefs listed in no particular order:
1. I believe government can be run efficiently but needs to be streamlined.
2. If you need a gun to feel safe, then buy one.
3. Government spends too much money and is quite wasteful and the problem begins with a complete lack of oversight.
4. I'm pro-choice, but would not oppose overturning Roe vs Wade and letting each state decide.
5. I don't care if two gay guys want to get married. I would however, let the government recognize civil unions and let churches recognize the concept of marriage.
6. Complete de-regulation of businesses is a bad idea.
7. Go ahead and drill more oil wells in the USA. I think it can be done responsibly, but I'm not convinced it would lead to lower prices at the pump.
8. Welfare programs can be helpful and beneficial if they were monitored better. (See #3)
8. Tracking down Bin Laden in Afganistan was the right thing to do, invading Iraq was not.
9. Terrorism is a crime problem and terrorist groups operate like crime families.
10. Over-taxation is a burden for the middleclass, but over-borrowing is worse.
11. Organized religion is really a form of government in disguise.
12. The increasing national debt is causing the rest of the world to lose faith in our dollar.
13. I'm open to looking at a national healthcare insurance program.
14. I enjoy ice cold beer, but there's also times when I'd rather have a glass of quality chianti.
15. Education at all levels (right through the PhD level) should be affordable, maybe even free, to anyone who has the ability and desire to learn.
16. Lobbyists, corporatons, and special interests buy politicians and essentially run the country.
17. Heavy penalties need to be leveled on businesses that employ illegal immigrants. Take away the incentive to cross the border and the flow of illegals dries up.
18. Motorcylists that don't wear helmets ought to pay a higher insurance rate. I always wear mine because I'd like to keep my dome intact.
19. The Bush administration is one bizarre outfit. I have no political term to describe them, although oligarchy comes to mind.
20. Washington is essentially a Country Club made up of members who got there because they know how to play the "How to Get Elected Game". Tribal affiliation is not important since once in the club, they tend to take care of eachother as they cash in.
There you go...........label me.
The label that comes to mind is "normal".
Fredrick,
Thank you for asking these questions. I can see you put some effort into this and I will reply to you as I put my thoughts in order. I want to be precise in my reply. I'm happy to have some days off this week which allows me to jot down some thoughts.
But first, I wanted to ask Gary for his reaction to the news that Rush just signed a new $400 Million + contract. I also heard he got a 9 figure signing bonus. Gary, to save you the trouble doing the math, that's something over $100 Million - if true.
I suspect your first inclination is to say, "good for him, but it's none of my business", but that would be exactly untrue.
It is your business - The business of delivering information in a free marketplace. With liberals losing their jobs by the droves in newsrooms, with liberal talk show hosts failing to earn a living, and with liberal networks losing viewers each and every day, what is the marketplace telling us?
On the other hand, non-liberal networks, newspapers and talk shows are doing well - especially honestly conservative ones.
The marketplace has spoken and it is rewarding honest, conservative, normal Americanism in a big way - nationally and locally as well. Unapologetic conservative hosts buy flashy new cars with their signing bonuses, not insurance checks.
So Gary, is it time to drop the phony Main Street, "we've got to get along", "all ideas are equally good" stuff?
I almost fell off my chair laughing the other day when Dave in Dover called in and made an argument against whatever point you were making. Your first comment to him was, "see, we agree on this". Dave, to his credit even though he leans lib, was shocked and said "no, I'm not. Not at all". Dave wanted an intelligent debate and instead he got puffery.
The overwhelming desire to reach consensus, the Obama-crush, the taking sides with Wesley Clark (when even Obama chided him), the exaggerated claims of being above the petty political fray, all may appeal to a small segment of the politically dazed, but the marketplace values straight talk and a strong argument in favor of American normality and against liberalism.
So, now you have every reason to never be so confused as to vote for an Ed Rendell again. You can confidently say, "one side is just better than the other and I'm on the good side".
You can do it not just because it's right and true - but also because it pays.
Lucky for the Conservatives that none of them are loosing jobs. What planet do you live on, bub ?
Scoring key so far
Fred = Normal
ATrenton = Abby Normal
AnonyMouse:
One thing I like about Fred is that he has both the wit and the guts to actually enter into a conversation.
As I'm sure you are well aware, this is a skill not in great evidence with most libs.
Still, I, for one, would be glad to have another point of view expressed and invite you to discuss your thoughts on guns, freedom or labeling - or I'd be glad to read a few paragraphs from you on any other subject that concerns you.
Come on, participate! We'll be kind to you. I know I will.
Fred, I haven't forgotten the response I promised you.
Fredrich,
I appreciate the time and thought you put into your list of items. I will be able to make a few comments based on them.
But first, I can see that the prospect of having to bear the label of liberal is a significant weight to you. Few liberals like that label; not just because it has been derided and laughed at by conservatives (who have no hesitation in labeling themselves), but also due to a perhaps unconscious shame at the antics and pronouncements of so many fellow liberals.
To a normal American conservative, the demand to not label anyone as a liberal is akin to Obama warning us not to talk about patriotism. We all know what it likely really means.
When I looked at your list of 20 items, I immediately wondered why this list ended up as it did. Of all the perhaps hundreds or thousands of items that may have made the list, why did this particular 20 made the cut? Certainly, the list did not appear from God on tablets – therefore they must be the product of conscious or even subconscious thought. It’s kind of like a rorschach test in that it gives us a look into the mind that made it.
My first impression is that several of these items were chosen in an attempt to proclaim, “Look, I’m normal just like you”. Several of the very first items are in the category and seem to have been placed there to make this point. Two of the first three, for example, refer to a belief that government is too large.
The question is, are these beliefs real or are they an almost forced proclamation of normality?
The two solutions offered, streamlining and oversight, appear to be sufficiently mushy as to be totally meaningless and may reflect an unconscious cry that "I don't really mean it". Almost all liberals, if asked, would answer that the government is too big. The problem is that they will always vote to make it bigger and thus their belief is either designed to deceive or is a function of self-delusion.
The other thing that struck me about the list was its strangely almost-vanilla feel. Most of the items are presented in such as way as to be mostly non-controversial or impossible and therefore harmless. “Gays can marry, but all of the thousands of levels of government must be forced to stop recognizing marriage”, is so unlikely that no one will argue with it. Why bother? How about “let’s ‘look’ at health insurance”. Who could argue with a quick look? It’s not liberal or conservative but I can label it – it’s simply unthinking nonsense.
And lastly, a very few truly liberal items are sprinkled in with the ones designed to be a proclamation of normality and those that are just apolitical and thus camouflage. The two that stand out reflect that corporations are secretly running the country and the call to treat terrorists as if they were normal criminals. Both of these are, of course, liberal, dangerous and wrong.
In trying to comply with your request to “label you”, these two are quite instructive. I do not believe that many conservatives will have those two beliefs. Almost all liberals do.
But, I must decline your offer to label you based on those 20 things. It would be much better to engage in sincere self-reflection of real core beliefs instead of creating a list perhaps designed to fool the writer more than the reader.
Take #15 for example – use a few minutes and ask yourself, “If I really believe this, and I could write any law I wanted to implement it and have it passed, what would that law specifically say?” Go into all the required detail. You may find that to actually do it in the way you want would require things that are unconstitutional, or cost too much in money, freedom or both. Or, you might find that it's substantially already true today (which it is). A conservative would instinctively see this and would never write such “pie in the sky” stuff. A liberal would write it simply to make himself feel good and would not think about or even care what such an undertaking might actually entail.
However, we don’t need the list to assign a label correctly. We only need a voting record. If you vote dem and/or liberal, you are. Your vote doesn’t happen by itself and a vote is an expression of your political will. If you can’t or won’t assign a label based on your actual voting record, then pick the people you would vote for in these three hypothetical matchups:
Nancy Pelosi vs. Tom Delay
Harry Reid vs. Rick Santorum
Arlene Spector vs. Bob Casey
If you picked the left choice in the first two and if you picked either choice in the third, you are a liberal.
Please report back to us with your freshly minted label and I hope this is what you were hoping for.
Great, glad you got back to me, Trenton.
There was no rhyme or reason to my list..........the stuff just flowed out in a stream of consciousness. The thoughts, observations, and beliefs were random.
Anyhow, your response illustrates something. You seem to have this burning need to label people as if there are lists of beliefs one must subscribe if they choose one tribe or another. Who knows, maybe that's what happens when you choose an organized religion, but I don't feel it applies to political clubs.
I've chosen no political or religious tribe so it's hard for me to relate to that line of thinking. I guess I'm not programmed that way as I prefer to evaluate an idea, issue, or a policy individually without referring to the position held by a political or religious tribe.
Call me a liberal, conservative, progressive, anarchist, fascist, communist, socialist, or whatever floats your boat. I prefer Just Fred.
Post a Comment